Evidence of meeting #28 for Fisheries and Oceans in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was seals.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1 p.m.
Senior Science and Policy Analyst, David Suzuki Foundation
I think we might characterize a cull as the intentional killing of a species under the assumption that it will benefit another one in a predatory context.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
My next question is for Mr. Hardy, if I have any more time.
In your recent experience at the Atlantic seal science task team, how co-operative was the DFO science department with your team?
1 p.m.
Fisheries Consultant, As an Individual
The team was co-chaired by DFO management. We got good co-operation, and those who presented provided co-operation. I don't think there was anything being held back there. A lot of us understood the situation locally. Overall, we've commented and we've made recommendations.
The one that seems to be sticking right now is a forum or summit. I'm not sure if you guys got the information I sent, but I did include a very detailed list of the summit's forums and committees on seals prior to 1992 up until today. I'm sure that most of you there are getting a bit tired of listening to and talking about this, but nothing has been done.
In terms of co-operation, we need co-operation on action. We don't need more dialogue.
1 p.m.
Conservative
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
I would like to get one more questioner to even it out.
We will go to Mr. Morrissey for the remaining time of probably four minutes.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Thank you, Chair.
Mr. Young, you made an earlier statement that artificially controlling or controlling ecosystems has failed. Could you quickly point to an example?
1:05 p.m.
Senior Science and Policy Analyst, David Suzuki Foundation
The one I reference in my document is salmon hatcheries, where the assumption was that we would improve overall abundance and generally improve the health of Pacific salmon.
Unfortunately, the latest science is showing that those hatcheries themselves have a direct impact, that hatchery fish are not the same as wild fish and that continued efforts to move in that direction could be more problematic for wild salmon than beneficial.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Okay.
I have a question for Dr. Rangeley.
You made a comment about using science to rebuild stocks, but that may conflict or does conflict with fisher science. Could you broaden the terminology? Because that's what we hear constantly: The fisher science or the fisher knowledge is often in conflict with the DFO science.
1:05 p.m.
Dr. Robert Rangeley
I'm not sure exactly where you're going with this, but very clearly, there's useful information from all sorts of quarters...people that are on the water. It's very important, but we do have to follow science. We have to be very clear with our goals and how we're measuring the outcomes of that information. Oftentimes, anecdotal information is extremely valuable.
I think Professor Trites mentioned a process he was involved in, where it provides an input in a way that is tremendously valuable, but in the end, the department has to be really clear on its goals and what it's trying to accomplish, follow the precautionary approach and manage risk and uncertainty, in a way, because we won't have all the science. When there's contradictory evidence coming forward, yes, it has to be factored in, either in asking better science questions or additional questions or in accepting that it is part of the uncertainty and then managing with greater precautions when we don't know what's happening with the population.
I hope that answers your question. I wasn't quite clear.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Yes, it does.
Further around that, when science conflicts with fishers' knowledge or science, what option, then, would you suggest be used, from your professional background?
1:05 p.m.
Dr. Robert Rangeley
Fisher knowledge and fishery representatives have ample opportunity to participate in the process to question the scientists, in something like a CSAS stock assessment meeting. They are frequently, and have been for years, active participants in the process. I think we need to follow that process.
What we can't abide by is second-guessing and anecdotal information coming after the fact. We have to be really clear on what the process is and follow a precautionary approach. Remember, the whole point about rebuilding our fisheries is for the future. Often where the confusion occurs is on short-term benefits versus long-term gain. We continually make the mistake of saying we can catch more fish today at the expense of our grandchildren.
Rebuilding means taking into account both spatial and temporal scales. The value in our fisheries is underperforming. We can get much more value out of our fisheries if we allow them to rebuild. The models clearly show that. History shows that. We have this short-term view and what's called a shifting baseline. We just think we can catch more fish every day and every year and fight over annual quotas. That's an absurd way to manage a fishery, to think from annual quota to annual quota.
We need a vision from our department. We need a vision for Canadians, for rebuilding our oceans. They're tremendously underperforming. Only about 30% of our fisheries are healthy.
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Bobby Morrissey Liberal Egmont, PE
Thank you.
Perhaps I can get in a quick final question to Chris Jones.
You talked about two-tiered science. Just quickly, what were you referencing, Mr. Jones, when you referenced two-tiered science? I believe that was in reference to DFO science.
1:05 p.m.
Senior Fisheries Manager, Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Retired), As an Individual
Yes, thank you.
The issue is in the Maritimes region, where we have high-profile fisheries receiving more direct science support and other fisheries that are not high profile receiving very little to practically no science support. That's the two-tier approach. I would expect that it evolved back in 2012 from an issue of limited resources. It has been retained, so we have fisheries that are essentially operated—
1:10 p.m.
Senior Fisheries Manager, Department of Fisheries and Oceans (Retired), As an Individual
I think it was from having limited resources. They had to make a decision. They were going to put science, shotgun, across a broad scope in which everybody got a little piece, or they were going to focus science in the higher-profile fisheries such as crab, lobster and halibut. We now have fisheries that have very little to no science involved, depending on their profile.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
Thank you, Mr. Morrissey. You've gone well over time.
I see that Ms. Barron has her hand up. Is that on a point of order?
1:10 p.m.
NDP
Lisa Marie Barron NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC
Yes. Maybe I could just ask something quickly before we end the meeting, as we have all of our witnesses here today. There was a statement made and I'm wondering, through the chair, if my colleague could clarify it. I can't remember the exact wording of it, but it was about the misrepresentation of truth in relation to information that a witness was referencing today. I'm wondering, through the chair, if that member could clarify specifically what was being said. I want to ensure that we do not leave a meeting with an accusation of a member misrepresenting information. I think it's something that's worth clarifying.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
1:10 p.m.
Conservative
Clifford Small Conservative Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If I said that Mr. Young had been misleading, what I in fact meant to say was that the group that Mr. Young is representing misled MPs by insinuating that Bill C-251 is calling for a cull. There's no such clause in that bill. I just saw an email that went to MPs. I don't know why it didn't come to me, but it went to MPs from the David Suzuki Foundation.
1:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ken McDonald
I haven't seen it.
Again I'd remind people to be careful with the words you choose. As the Speaker of the House often says, words are what they are.
That closes our session for today. Thank you to all of our witnesses who appeared, both in person and virtually, and who shared their knowledge with the committee today. I know it's valued knowledge and it will certainly add to the report at the end of the day.
I would just quickly remind members to make sure that your phones are on silent when you're in the committee room, because there's nothing worse when somebody is speaking either virtually or in the room and somebody's phone buzzes or dings or both. I've been guilty of it myself at times, but I think we all know how to silence them completely and still get the messages if we want to get them.
I want to say a big thank you to our interpreters today for doing a wonderful job and for their patience, and to our analyst, our clerk and, of course, to all of our own individual staff for making this a success today.
The meeting is adjourned.